>I think you're suggesting that newspapers should print "Franc,ois" and
>those who do not have c-cedilla on their keyboard should know how to
>translate such a thing into the appropriate %xx code. Is this really
>a reasonable suggestion?
This should be handle by the client software, which knows that c-cedilla has
to be translated to %xx. And most systems today provide a means to enter c-cedilla
even if it is not on the keyboard.
But most URL's are produced by systems, not by typing. Normally a user types the
first page reference, and from there on proceeds by clicking and replying to forms
etc.
I don't believe there is a requirement to allow a user to type a URL to cheat
a form response.
In my opinion the first parts of the URL, used by the network, should remain as
they are now, but the last part (the path), used only by the client and the server,
should be fully internationlized, i.e ISO 10646 coded in some agreed way.
We need file names in our language.
>That's OK with me, but what you're proposing should not then be called
>a URL.
The original intention behind the U in URL is interesting but not necessarily
relevant.
>Larry
Jonathan Rosenne
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Jonathan_Rosenne